Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25126324›Full record

ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2010

Assessment of medicare part d communications to beneficiaries.

Meghana Aruru, J Warren Salmon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American health & drug benefits, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Meghana AruruAssistant Professor, Chicago College of Pharmacy, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, IL.
J Warren SalmonProfessor of Health Policy & Administration, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Midwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder Americans receive healthcare benefits through the federal Medicare program. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services provides comprehensive information to Medicare beneficiaries regarding benefits, plan options, and enrollment policies primarily through the annual Medicare & You handbook and the Medicare website. Few studies have assessed the overall readability and, therefore, the usefulness of this handbook for adequately educating beneficiaries. Healthcare communications written at higher levels than the readers' comprehension levels cannot be well understood.

objectiveTo measure the readability of the 2008 Medicare & You handbook provided to all Medicare beneficiaries.

methodFor our analysis, the 2008 version of the Medicare & You handbook was downloaded from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Passages of ≥250 words were saved individually in Windows Notepad as text files. Shorter passages (ie, <250 words) were combined with the next continuing passage. Each file was then uploaded into the Internet-based Lexile analyzer (the Lexile Framework for Reading). Figures, pictures, and tables were not included in the analysis.

resultsApproximately 70% of analyzed passages were written at approximately the 5th- to 12th-grade levels (Lexile scores: 790L-1290L), whereas 30% of the passages were written at levels above grade 12 (Lexile scores: 1310L-1910L).

conclusionMedicare beneficiaries who have less than a high-school level education may find the passages analyzed in this study difficult to read and comprehend as discussed, indicating the need for simplified communication. Our study provides recommendations to improve the handbook for better comprehension by beneficiaries.

Identifiers

PMID25126324
PMCPMC4106614
OpenAlexW2143578145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.